Victory: Wisconsin Teachers Just Voted to Disband Their Teachers Union

[Polk]

It's interesting that the middle class seems to be in decline with unions. Go figure.

Seems that the decline began with the massive over regulation of business.

Just something to ponder.

If that's the case, the 1970s would have been horrible for the middle class and the 1980s would have been boom times. Neither of those things are true.

 

[bodecea]

In a democracy strength is in numbers, so we organize. Manufacturers into the NAM, business into the Chamber of Commerce, doctors into the AMA, disabled veterans into the DAV and so on. All neatly joined for power. Here's a chance for Wisconsin to show America there is no need for teacher unions and bingo, but should the need arise and maybe it will, then back to unions, and a lesson has been learned. In the meantime for America it is another, living in a democracy learning opportunity.

Don't teachers in the US need a union to help them defend themselves against false charges by pupils? Charges of sexual harassment or racial abuse? A constant hazard in the UK and to a lesser extent in Sweden.

This woman did not have a union.

Teacher Fired Over Threat Posed by Abusive Ex-Husband | KTLA 5

 

[JakeStarkey]

none of your far righties are better informed or part of a more mature market.

The statement above by jarred jaraxle contradicted the implication of the op. (no one has proved differently).

This particular union failed to take care of its members, so they will go to a more hard core union, which is the american way and hated by business.

Tis what it tis, far right reactionaries.

business can handle hard core unions, or go out of business. Politicians pander to them for their votes and campaign contributions, to the detriment of the taxpayers. That is why public service unions should not be allowed to exist.

this.

That is exactly what business does to government.

Step off, hypocrites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unregulated capitalism has always been the country's greatest danger.

 

[Pete7469]

It's interesting that the middle class seems to be in decline with unions. Go figure.

Seems that the decline began with the massive over regulation of business.

Just something to ponder.

If that's the case, the 1970s would have been horrible for the middle class and the 1980s would have been boom times. Neither of those things are true.

What reality do you live in?

The 70's were a disaster, gas lines, a misery index and Carter's stupid sweaters. We're still trying to forget about Disco.

The 80's were economic boom time.

 

[Polk]

Seems that the decline began with the massive over regulation of business.

Just something to ponder.

If that's the case, the 1970s would have been horrible for the middle class and the 1980s would have been boom times. Neither of those things are true.

What reality do you live in?

The 70's were a disaster, gas lines, a misery index and Carter's stupid sweaters. We're still trying to forget about Disco.

The 80's were economic boom time.

Income for the middle class rose during the 70s, while it was stagnant through the 80s. The 80s were great for the people at the top, but were pretty crappy for the average worker.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unions are on the downslide anywhere anyone has an option – is this any surprise.
Teachers are going to be no different. There is a reason that such a small portion of people belong to them now – they no longer represent the interests of the employees.

And by "anywhere anyone has an option", you mean jurisdictions have de facto banned labor unions.

Therein lies the problem. You seem to think that not forcing people by virtue of employment requirement is ‘de facto banning’ unions.


I meant EXACTLY what I said. Whenever people are given the option of joining a union – they usually do not. Because that does not fit into your star eyed vision of unions does not mean that they are being banned. It simply means that unions have failed to represent the workers that they fleece to exist. IF unions were so damn good, they would be bigger than ever and people that had an option would not streak away from them. Reality shows a different picture.

 

[Polk]

Unions are on the downslide anywhere anyone has an option – is this any surprise.
Teachers are going to be no different. There is a reason that such a small portion of people belong to them now – they no longer represent the interests of the employees.

And by "anywhere anyone has an option", you mean jurisdictions have de facto banned labor unions.

Therein lies the problem. You seem to think that not forcing people by virtue of employment requirement is ‘de facto banning’ unions.


I meant EXACTLY what I said. Whenever people are given the option of joining a union – they usually do not. Because that does not fit into your star eyed vision of unions does not mean that they are being banned. It simply means that unions have failed to represent the workers that they fleece to exist. IF unions were so damn good, they would be bigger than ever and people that had an option would not streak away from them. Reality shows a different picture.

Forcing someone to join a union as condition of employment has been outlawed since 1947 (Taft–Hartley). What has happened is that non-union members have been required to pay a fee to the union for the collective bargain services provided by the union, since the union is required by law to negotiate on behalf of all of the workers.

Workers don't join unions in "right to work" states because state law penalizes workers for doing so. It's not "people don't want unions" it's that people are unwilling to effectively pay a fine to be union members.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's interesting that the middle class seems to be in decline with unions. Go figure.

Seems that the decline began with the massive over regulation of business.

Just something to ponder.

So what's massive regulation? China obviously doesn't have this massive regulation and it's probably the most polluted country in the world. What right do we citizens have to clean air and water, right? So anyway how do you define massive regulation?

 

[Jarlaxle]

And by "anywhere anyone has an option", you mean jurisdictions have de facto banned labor unions.

Therein lies the problem. You seem to think that not forcing people by virtue of employment requirement is ‘de facto banning’ unions.


I meant EXACTLY what I said. Whenever people are given the option of joining a union – they usually do not. Because that does not fit into your star eyed vision of unions does not mean that they are being banned. It simply means that unions have failed to represent the workers that they fleece to exist. IF unions were so damn good, they would be bigger than ever and people that had an option would not streak away from them. Reality shows a different picture.

Forcing someone to join a union as condition of employment has been outlawed since 1947 (Taft–Hartley). What has happened is that non-union members have been required to pay a fee to the union for the collective bargain services provided by the union, since the union is required by law to negotiate on behalf of all of the workers.

So yes, forcing someone to join a union happens all the time! It is a distinction without a difference, and anyone HONEST would admit it.

 

[Polk]

Therein lies the problem. You seem to think that not forcing people by virtue of employment requirement is ‘de facto banning’ unions.


I meant EXACTLY what I said. Whenever people are given the option of joining a union – they usually do not. Because that does not fit into your star eyed vision of unions does not mean that they are being banned. It simply means that unions have failed to represent the workers that they fleece to exist. IF unions were so damn good, they would be bigger than ever and people that had an option would not streak away from them. Reality shows a different picture.

Forcing someone to join a union as condition of employment has been outlawed since 1947 (Taft–Hartley). What has happened is that non-union members have been required to pay a fee to the union for the collective bargain services provided by the union, since the union is required by law to negotiate on behalf of all of the workers.

So yes, forcing someone to join a union happens all the time! It is a distinction without a difference, and anyone HONEST would admit it.

It's a huge distinction. Hence why you try to claim "everyone knows it happens" without pointing to an example.

 

[FA_Q2]

And by "anywhere anyone has an option", you mean jurisdictions have de facto banned labor unions.

Therein lies the problem. You seem to think that not forcing people by virtue of employment requirement is ‘de facto banning’ unions.


I meant EXACTLY what I said. Whenever people are given the option of joining a union – they usually do not. Because that does not fit into your star eyed vision of unions does not mean that they are being banned. It simply means that unions have failed to represent the workers that they fleece to exist. IF unions were so damn good, they would be bigger than ever and people that had an option would not streak away from them. Reality shows a different picture.

Forcing someone to join a union as condition of employment has been outlawed since 1947 (Taft–Hartley). What has happened is that non-union members have been required to pay a fee to the union for the collective bargain services provided by the union, since the union is required by law to negotiate on behalf of all of the workers.

Workers don't join unions in "right to work" states because state law penalizes workers for doing so. It's not "people don't want unions" it's that people are unwilling to effectively pay a fine to be union members.

They are forced when they are required to pay fines to the union with or without membership. That is forced membership to anyone that has the honesty to look at what that actually means. There is no ‘fine’ in right to work states whatsoever. What you are referring to is the actual union dues. Workers are being offered the chance to support their unions or not and more often than not the workers do not want to. You know why that is? It is because the ‘product’ that the union is offering simply is not worth the charge that the union is asking for it. You and those like you that support unions simply cannot escape that simple reality.

People willingly spend cash to join clubs all the time but the universal factor in all of that is that those people feel they are getting the value of the money that they put in through some service or product. Unions are no different. Either they provide that value to the employee through negotiations with their employer and get the asked for fee or they don’t and cease to exist.

Sorry but extortion is fast becoming a tool of the past for unions and that is an immensely good thing. Perhaps you should put your efforts into making unions worth the expense rather than trying to give them a tool that it outright illegal of any other entity to utilize. With all the immense legal protections that they are given, unions should have ZERO issues sticking around.

 

[Polk]

For people to crow so much about economics, you guys seem to have a hard time understanding basic concepts. Even if you were the most pro-union diehard in the entire world, there is zero incentive to join a union in a "right to work" state. Why? Because what joining the union does it strip money out of your pocket and hands it to workers who are non-members of the union. It's not that unions are losing hearts and minds, it's that you've created a system that penalizes unions for existing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Forcing someone to join a union as condition of employment has been outlawed since 1947 (Taft–Hartley). What has happened is that non-union members have been required to pay a fee to the union for the collective bargain services provided by the union, since the union is required by law to negotiate on behalf of all of the workers.

So yes, forcing someone to join a union happens all the time! It is a distinction without a difference, and anyone HONEST would admit it.

It's a huge distinction. Hence why you try to claim "everyone knows it happens" without pointing to an example.

I see one every day in the mirror. I am forced to belong to a union to keep my job. Yes, yes, you will respond with BS about opting out, but that's what it is: BS. I can pay dues, or I can pay a "fee" that is exactly equal to the dues, to the PENNY!

 

[Polk]

So yes, forcing someone to join a union happens all the time! It is a distinction without a difference, and anyone HONEST would admit it.

It's a huge distinction. Hence why you try to claim "everyone knows it happens" without pointing to an example.

I see one every day in the mirror. I am forced to belong to a union to keep my job. Yes, yes, you will respond with BS about opting out, but that's what it is: BS. I can pay dues, or I can pay a "fee" that is exactly equal to the dues, to the PENNY!

Except it's not, since the fee you pay can only go to the costs of collective bargaining, while union dues go for other things. Keep lying though.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You didn't read my post, did you. (That's not a question, dickhead.)

 

[rhodescholar]

If that's the case, the 1970s would have been horrible for the middle class and the 1980s would have been boom times. Neither of those things are true.

It would be nice if you knew WTF you were talking about. High inflation AND high interest rates - how about buying that house on a mortgage at 11% - made the 70s a train wreck.

The massive illegal immigration surge starting in the late 60s after the 1965 LBJ act to loosen immigration rules and the beginning of the factory outsourcing to the 3rd world ramped up in earnest by the mid-70s, which is why so many households then needed the wife to start working to maintain the same standard of living. Facts are important - and good things to have, you might try to get some.

 

[Polk]

If that's the case, the 1970s would have been horrible for the middle class and the 1980s would have been boom times. Neither of those things are true.

It would be nice if you knew WTF you were talking about. High inflation AND high interest rates - how about buying that house on a mortgage at 11% - made the 70s a train wreck.

The massive illegal immigration surge starting in the late 60s after the 1965 LBJ act to loosen immigration rules and the beginning of the factory outsourcing to the 3rd world ramped up in earnest by the mid-70s, which is why so many households then needed the wife to start working to maintain the same standard of living. Facts are important - and good things to have, you might try to get some.

High interest rates are a manifestation of high inflation. It's not a separate issue. The rate of inflation really isn't important though. What matters is the growth rate. If growth outpaces inflation, it doesn't really matter if inflation is 2% or 20% because quality of life is improving.

 

[Peterf]

In a democracy strength is in numbers, so we organize. Manufacturers into the NAM, business into the Chamber of Commerce, doctors into the AMA, disabled veterans into the DAV and so on. All neatly joined for power. Here's a chance for Wisconsin to show America there is no need for teacher unions and bingo, but should the need arise and maybe it will, then back to unions, and a lesson has been learned. In the meantime for America it is another, living in a democracy learning opportunity.

Don't teachers in the US need a union to help them defend themselves against false charges by pupils? Charges of sexual harassment or racial abuse? A constant hazard in the UK and to a lesser extent in Sweden.

No, because those charges tend to be true. The school administartion is supposed to protect it's staff.

In England less than 5% of charges of sexual abuse against teachers are sustained. Far from tending to be true they are overwhelmingly malicious accusations by pupils demonstrating power over teachers. Power exercised with impunity.

 

[paulitician]

Sorry to be so blunt, but Teachers in America simply whine too much. That's how they're being perceived now. And the Teacher Unions are the cause of that. Every profession has hardships, Teachers aren't special in that regard. But by far, they're the biggest whiners in this country. They never mention the fantastic perks they enjoy. They only like to mention the hardships. Excellent Benefits, Weekends Off, Several weeks of paid Holiday time off, Summers off, etc etc... Most professions in America do not enjoy such perks.

Teacher Unions have lost the support of the People. You just can't cry wolf forever. Working for the Government isn't like working for a Private Business. You probably won't get rich, but you can live a very prosperous life. So in the end, it's your choice to work for the Government or not. Make your decision, and live with it. The constant whining wears thin on people after awhile. Teachers do have a tough job, but so do many many other Workers in various professions. And they certainly don't have the toughest job. The Taxpayers cannot provide an endless supply of cash. It's not the Private Sector. So if you decide to teach, do it because it's your passion. Otherwise, decide to do something else. The People don't want to hear endless whining anymore.